Weekly Spotlight 12/22/23 – 12/28/23
California DOJ is continuing its crusade against concealed carry
The California Department of Justice recently released proposed “emergency regulations” concerning the training requirements of the concealed carry weapon (CCW) permitting process. These regulations not only appear to contradict the 2022 Bruen v. NYSPA decision by the United States Supreme Court but also raise serious concerns for the future of law-abiding Californians who need firearms education and training. Despite the rising trend in violent crime in the state, these “emergency regulations” focus on restricting access to CCW permits rather than addressing the fundamental issue of punishing violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law.
Recent legislative actions, notably Senate Bill 2, have intensified concerns that the California Legislature and the California Department of Justice are not aligning state laws with the Bruen decision but instead go in the opposite direction. It will significantly reduce the number of eligible firearms safety instructors, recognizing only three out of eight categories in the California Penal Code. This is an excessive step that will undermine the crucial education and training necessary for responsible gun ownership.
The “emergency regulations” would also disproportionately impact low-income Californians. By restricting the supply of certified firearms safety instructors without addressing rising demand for CCW permits, the outcome will be increased costs and limited availability of training and education courses. This change could shift the landscape from a universal right to self-defense under the Second Amendment to a privilege reserved for those who can pay for a certified instructor.
If fully implemented, the regulations pose a threat to public safety. They bring us closer to a scenario where only criminals, who fundamentally disregard the law, have easy access to illegal firearms, while law-abiding citizens face diminishing options for obtaining and carrying firearms for self-defense. If you live in California, we strongly encourage you to contact your elected officials to voice your opposition to the new regulations. Ensuring that more Californians have equal access to firearms education and training is the best way to make communities safer and protect the fundamental rights of all.
OTHER NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED
Gun-rights advocates’ hopes of emergency relief were unceremoniously dashed by the Supreme Court on Thursday. The High Court issued an order denying a request for emergency legal intervention in a case against the City of Naperville, Illinois’ ban on so-called assault weapons and “large capacity” ammunition magazines. The request was made by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), which sought an order blocking the ban after a panel of Seventh Circuit judges ruled to uphold it last month.
Gun rights groups are posturing to defy the Justice Department’s model legislation published this week that gives states a framework for codifying gun storage rules. On Wednesday, the DOJ published a framework aimed at helping “more states enact sensible gun-safety laws,” and includes requirements for securing firearms kept in residences and vehicles and requirements for reporting of lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement.
No gun legislation has been signed into law this year, but lawmakers at the statehouse are considering one: House Bill 51, or the “Second Amendment Preservation Act.“ The bill prohibits any state public officer from enforcing federal gun laws that conflict with the state’s laws and would fine any subdivision that employs an officer who knowingly enforces federal gun restrictions. “Local law enforcement cannot be compelled to enforce gun rules from the federal government,” House Speaker Jason Stephens (R-Kitts Hill) said.
- WAMC (Vermont): Lawsuit Challenges Two Provisions Of Vermont’s Gun Laws
Organizations supporting gun rights have filed suit challenging two provisions of Vermont’s gun laws. The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs has joined two sporting goods stores and two individuals in a lawsuit that claims two Vermont laws violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The first law limits firearms magazines to 10 rounds for a rifle and 15 for a pistol. The second imposes a 72-hour waiting period for the purchase of a firearm.